Minutes from January 27, 1987 Interdisciplinary Team meeting

LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY .
MINUTES OF ID TEAM MEETING
January 27, 1987
Attendance:
Sheldon Barker, CH2M HILL
Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL
Torn Haislip, CH2M HILL
Fred LaBar, USFS
Mark Shaw, USFS
Clark Ostergaard, USFS
Gale Larson, Valley Engineering
Duncan Silver, FHWA
Jim Naegle, UDOT
Lynn Zollinger, UDOT
Howard Richardson, UDOT
Steve Flint, Audobon Assoc.
Bill Helm,
Item 1 - Review of Minutes
There were no cornnlents on the minutes of the previous meet­ing.
Steve Flint expressed concern over the traffic forecast and
felt that an exponential forecast is not statistically
supportable from the traffic data for the Logan Canyon
stations shown in the technical memorandum. He was also
concerned that level of service projections based on that
growth rate would be misleading. He suggested a time series
analysis and using data as far back as available. Stan
Nuffer reviewed the methods and assumptions used when the
technical memorandum was presented and accepted by the
I.D. Team in August 1986. In the original analysis, we had
looked at a number of areas to forecast growth including
traffic data for a number of highways including stations on
U.S. 89 outside of the Canyon. Also data from regional
economic and local land use forecasting was used, which
forecast a growth rate in the 2 percent range. All of these
sources of data were used to arrive at the proposed rate.
Concern has been expressed that the 2 percent rate was too
low when compared against projections made by UDOT in the
past. After considerable discussion, a motion was passed
with one negative vote to retain at 2 percent (1.95)
experimental growth rate. Stan agreed to look at what
effect differences in the projected ADT would have in
capacity determinations.
Steve also suggested that Section 2 be broken into two sub­sections,
for capacity analysis which will be considered.
The assumption for one percent buses in the traffic needs to
be supported by data or dropped. Lynn Zollinger suggested
we check with Idaho and Wyoming on what projections they are
using.
1
Duncan Silver asked what process will be used in determining
visual impacts, and if there are any rules or guidelines
that can be followed. Clark Qstergaard ·said that the · exist­ing
analysis shows what is there and what should be preserv~d.
Each area will have to be handled on a case-by-case basis
for each of the alternatives. Mitigation measures may be
possible in some areas.
Due to the length of discussion on the above items, agenda
items 2 and 3 were passed over.
Items 2 and 3
Time was not available to review in the meeting. Team mem­bers
encouraged to read the material.
Item 4 - Continued Discussion of Alternatives
Stan distributed a revised copy of the component and alter­native
development matrix showing the elimination of some
alternates and modification of components in other. After
considerable discussion the following alternates were agreed
upon:
Middle Canyon
Alt 1 No build
Alt 2 Spot improvements
Alt 3 Widen along existing alignment
Alt 4 Widen and improve align to 40 mph with advising 35 mph design where necessary
Upper Canyon
Alt 1 No build
Alt 2 Spot improvements
Alt 4 Widen and improve existing alignment to 60 mph with lower advisory design speed where necessary
Rich County
Alt 1 No build
Alt 2 Spot improvements
Alt 4 Widen and improve existing alignment to 40 mph with lower advisory design speed where necessary
Alt 6 New north alignment with 40 mph basic but look at 50 mph if possible
Spot improvements should be defined by location and improve­ment.
2
Fred LaBar was skeptical that a uniform 40 mph design in the
middle Canyon would ever be acceptable to the Forest
Service.
SLC-STN/03i
3

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY .
MINUTES OF ID TEAM MEETING
January 27, 1987
Attendance:
Sheldon Barker, CH2M HILL
Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL
Torn Haislip, CH2M HILL
Fred LaBar, USFS
Mark Shaw, USFS
Clark Ostergaard, USFS
Gale Larson, Valley Engineering
Duncan Silver, FHWA
Jim Naegle, UDOT
Lynn Zollinger, UDOT
Howard Richardson, UDOT
Steve Flint, Audobon Assoc.
Bill Helm,
Item 1 - Review of Minutes
There were no cornnlents on the minutes of the previous meet­ing.
Steve Flint expressed concern over the traffic forecast and
felt that an exponential forecast is not statistically
supportable from the traffic data for the Logan Canyon
stations shown in the technical memorandum. He was also
concerned that level of service projections based on that
growth rate would be misleading. He suggested a time series
analysis and using data as far back as available. Stan
Nuffer reviewed the methods and assumptions used when the
technical memorandum was presented and accepted by the
I.D. Team in August 1986. In the original analysis, we had
looked at a number of areas to forecast growth including
traffic data for a number of highways including stations on
U.S. 89 outside of the Canyon. Also data from regional
economic and local land use forecasting was used, which
forecast a growth rate in the 2 percent range. All of these
sources of data were used to arrive at the proposed rate.
Concern has been expressed that the 2 percent rate was too
low when compared against projections made by UDOT in the
past. After considerable discussion, a motion was passed
with one negative vote to retain at 2 percent (1.95)
experimental growth rate. Stan agreed to look at what
effect differences in the projected ADT would have in
capacity determinations.
Steve also suggested that Section 2 be broken into two sub­sections,
for capacity analysis which will be considered.
The assumption for one percent buses in the traffic needs to
be supported by data or dropped. Lynn Zollinger suggested
we check with Idaho and Wyoming on what projections they are
using.
1
Duncan Silver asked what process will be used in determining
visual impacts, and if there are any rules or guidelines
that can be followed. Clark Qstergaard ·said that the · exist­ing
analysis shows what is there and what should be preserv~d.
Each area will have to be handled on a case-by-case basis
for each of the alternatives. Mitigation measures may be
possible in some areas.
Due to the length of discussion on the above items, agenda
items 2 and 3 were passed over.
Items 2 and 3
Time was not available to review in the meeting. Team mem­bers
encouraged to read the material.
Item 4 - Continued Discussion of Alternatives
Stan distributed a revised copy of the component and alter­native
development matrix showing the elimination of some
alternates and modification of components in other. After
considerable discussion the following alternates were agreed
upon:
Middle Canyon
Alt 1 No build
Alt 2 Spot improvements
Alt 3 Widen along existing alignment
Alt 4 Widen and improve align to 40 mph with advising 35 mph design where necessary
Upper Canyon
Alt 1 No build
Alt 2 Spot improvements
Alt 4 Widen and improve existing alignment to 60 mph with lower advisory design speed where necessary
Rich County
Alt 1 No build
Alt 2 Spot improvements
Alt 4 Widen and improve existing alignment to 40 mph with lower advisory design speed where necessary
Alt 6 New north alignment with 40 mph basic but look at 50 mph if possible
Spot improvements should be defined by location and improve­ment.
2
Fred LaBar was skeptical that a uniform 40 mph design in the
middle Canyon would ever be acceptable to the Forest
Service.
SLC-STN/03i
3